February 18^th, 1999.

The Hon. John Snobelen
Minister of Natural Resources
6th Floor, Whitney Block, 99 Wellesley Street West
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1W3
Ph: (705) 755-1902 Fax: (705) 755-2117

Dear Sir:

I have a number of concerns about this proposal. I ask you to consider each, on their own, and jointly. I highlight them here, and discuss each separately below.

1: This decision by the Minister's admittance is one of societal value and not based in fact.

2: The process by which Bill 139, and the January 15^th announcement to close the spring season decision was not performed with due diligence..

3: The Economic Impact of Such a Decision is well beyond a $40 Million problem.

4: This decision borders on, if not a direct violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the initial announcement of the spring season closure the Press Release states:

These statement are not based on sound reasoning. In all legislated activities, this province, along with almost all jurisdictions of government, the world over, does tolerate violation of law. To assume that we can legislate the proportionally significant avoidance of orphaning an animal is highly unrealistic and unreasonable, when we consider cub mortality rates in the wild (see Martin Obbard mortality rates, below) However, there are consequences. In fact, Ontario law provides for severe penalties as described by the Minister on November 26, 1997, during the Second Reading of Bill 139:

Few, if any bears are legally taken "as they emerge from their dens." The statement is faulty, misleading, and subject to dispute, especially in Central and Northern Ontario. The spring season begins April 15, however most hunters and outfitters do not begin hunting until the first weeks of May. A survey of bear license issued dates would substantiate this observation. Any MNR Conservation Officer would have no qualms about charging any person taking a bear 'as they emerge from their dens," as this is prohibited by law.

The laws, both now and previously have stated that it is illegal to take a sow with cubs in the spring. The vast majority of law abiding hunters will not even consider such an act, even in the fall season. Those that do are in essence poachers, and violators of the law. Outfitters commonly and by majority can identify sites where sows and cubs frequent, and avoid use of those sites, and at the same time, feed heavily to ensure they stay at that site, and out of harms way. If subpoenaed, clients would attest to these facts.

Conscientious hunting, and high deterrent penalties have just recently been implemented in 1999, and the Minister in his reasoning, does not allow those laws and penalties to be tested for effectiveness. The minister presents a contradiction in his own words, thus opening himself to a logical test of his thinking and policy.

Morrison, speaking at the Ontario Black Bear Association Rally, on February 13, 1999, stated that his early calculations for his estimated and hypothetical mortality rate due to hunting, did not consider the more recent data obtained by Martin Obbard, in the Chapleau Game Preserve studies which found that some females do not produce young until seven to eleven years of age. Such data would drastically reduce the estimate.

Martin Obbard, at an MNR sponsored information session on August 26, 1998, at the Senator Hotel, in Timmins, Ontario stated that, in fact there are methods to determine sex of bears. Some indicators are: For females, a slimmer neck and narrower skull. At that time, Obbard presented 35 mm. Slide projections to illustrate his talk. As well hunters at close range can view the bear for identifying features; on a male, the penis will show. Enticing a bear to stand will also show the sex organs.

One fact that has not been publicly recognized is that the ministry promotes the consumption of bear meat, and as well, many outfitters, guides and hunters look on bear hunting as a predatory and consumptive exercise. Many lodges provide sample meals of bear taken by their clients. For over twenty years, my clients have taken their bear back as food. I myself have been providing this exposure for over 20 years, and I can provide photographic evidence of meat preparation from at least 1980.

I am sure that there has been more evidence presented to you that indicates the same. Rather than a factual basis, the decision was emotive, a discussion of which appears below:

The MNR NOTICE OF PROPOSAL FOR REGULATION submitted to NOTO stated in part:

These statements claiming a positive consequence have been shown to be unfounded, by the countering statements of Ken Morrison, retired MNR Bear Biologist, and those of MNR Bear Biologist, Martin Obbard, who studies in the Chapleau Game Preserve.

Activist statements describing the condition of bears in the spring such as "groggy' 'stumbling' 'ravenous' and 'weak from their winter's sleep" are not accurate descriptions of the conditions of bears in the Spring. MNR Biologists and the data collected during the spring seasons by MNR in 1988 and 1989 and submitted to at least the Timmins District Offices will indicate fat pinches that do not reveal starvation. Any veterinarian, biologist, MNR Conservation officer, or bear outfitter can swear affidavits attesting to bear fat reserves in the twenty to forty pound ranges. Bears have a natural diet at that time of the year, of grasses and aspen high in protein content (Obbard Studies - Chapleau Game Preserve, and other biologists) Yet the general public is allowed to form opinions based upon hearsay and the outright mis-truths presented by the activist groups. The Minister and his department representatives have not countered these statements in the interest of an informed public. By omission, the Minister aligns himself with those misunderstandings rather than fact.

Other evidence has become public knowledge:

It appears that it is publicly recognized that Robert Schad has been instrumental in forwarding the views of a sector of the population that opposes hunting. This in itself is not a problem.

However, the driving force behind this thinking sets itself on its own value-pedestal and, by their own admittance, using mass persuasive marketing techniques, influences the rest of the population to 'see it their way' through a television or a newspaper. These actions, happening in any other country, would be seen by Canadians as near deplorable. We would be the first to state our outrage. But being in Canada, it is difficult to see ourselves. The Canadian Charter of Rights attempts to provide against this type of thing happening.

On January 16^th, 1999, on the TVO television program, 'Studio 2' the Minister, describing bears used improper terminology, identifying sows as 'mothers' and cubs as 'babies'. This terminology also influences public opinion, and to be consistent, the Minister would rightfully be required to identify horses as mothers and babies rather than mares and foals. The use of language in this manner indicates a bias, that when broadcast through mass media influences those with no background of the issues and the industry. It is through demonstration, manipulative and a misrepresentation of accepted terminology as practiced and communicated by the animal activist.

When the Minister takes on a similar view, against logic and fact, we do have a problem in a biased administration and management of Ontario's animal wildlife.

The Minister and the present government, aided by the passivity of the opposition parties, has allowed the vision of Canada to become clouded and influenced by artistic media hype (as reported above,) and a position held by a proportionally minority constituency. The diligent process and mechanisms of government used to arrive at the passage of Bill 139 and this decision show a consistency and is dangerously flawed and must be questioned. Public consultation on these issues was restricted to identified focus groups rather than the general public. Some of this process was identified by MPP's during the debates on Bill 139. (Presented below.)

The process by which the closure of the spring season was presented in a fashion which mislead the public. (presented further down.)

On November 26, 1997, in a sitting presided by the deputy speaker, the agenda for discussion in the legislature was changed from discussions on Bill 149 to Bill 139, at the last moment.

As reported in the Ontario Hansard, November 26, 1997, The Minister introduced the Second Reading of Bill 139, An Act to promote the conservation of fish and wildlife through the revision of the Game and Fish Act, to a sitting without quorum.

The debate for such an important Bill, on this day was presented to a very marginal, rather than full representation of the legislature.

On the Second and Third Reading of Bill 139, opposition members expressed their concerns about public consultation:

On January 16^th, 1999, on the TVO television program, 'Studio 2' the minister responded to a question from the host concerning the possibility of a change to the announcement, saying that the spring hunt closure was "a done deal." In reality, a proper response would acknowledge the accepted procedure and process of the Environmental Review Board. He did not offer such an explanation.

Only after a reaction from the population did the Minister's office acknowledge the due process required for the proposal to become law. The posing, as you know was submitted on January 21, 1999, some six days after the "done deal: statement. By this time, several thousand of protest letters, e-mails and faxes had been submitted to the MNR offices and local Tourist and Travel councils. The delay and omission of an explanation of due process invalidated those forms of protest because of the requirement for submissions to be identified with the ERB identification number.

A further measure of emphasis can be noted in the posted announcements of the ERB process in the newspapers. For example, in the Timmins Daily Press, the advertisement of the ERB submission process was printed in a font size smaller than that normally used for MNR announcements of this type. On the same page of the Timmins Daily Press, we can find an announcement of a timber Management Plan published in the normal print character size used for such announcements. The question can be put forth as to the reasoning behind these two separate postings and the discrepancy of visual impact.

The minister has stated that this was a decision based on the intolerance of the loss of "even one cub." This is an illogical and incomprehensible statement for a basis of modification of law. Using such logic, the use of automobiles could also be abolished for the cause of even one human life, yet hundreds of lives are lost on our provincial highways each year, without a change to the law. A position of intolerance is indefensible, unless that principle is carried, broadly over the spectrum of law now in effect in Ontario. As a basis for closing a season, this is capricious.

The MNR NOTICE OF PROPOSAL FOR REGULATION submitted to NOTO in January, 1999, stated in part:

The basis for a decision for social consequences is unfounded. For several years, the activists, with misleading information have influenced financial supporters and have been intent on eliminating any occupation, business, or pass-time that involve animals. Their admitted goals go far beyond hunting and fishing. They are now well-funded, and very politically intelligent, and so far, quite effective in swaying public opinion. It appears that this opinion has entered the political and law-making process; a forum that should guard against undue and misleading influence.

Undue influence is inherently wrong in Canada. When an individual or a group takes action against another, and in that action, seeks to change how others see that other group, or prevents him from expressing things that, in his own heart, are right for him, then those that seek to destroy him are fundamentally and willfully wrong. I propose their actions violate our fundamental Canadian creeds. We must expose that destructive thinking as truly discriminating and prejudiced, as we would if we were the victims of a hate campaign.

The net effect of the closure of spring hunting is a staggering economic loss I conservatively calculate at up to 2 billion dollars over ten years. A full analysis of the tourist business supply chain increases that loss even more. The immediate closure is negligent change management. It is not good business. Under separate cover, I have also submitted the math to support this statement.

The Minister's strategies ignore the long-term social and business impact of eliminating an annual 40 million dollar cash-flow injection of foreign money into Ontario's economy at a very critical period in the business cycle. The effects will last longer than ten years. Under a permanent closure, they last forever. Market development takes a long time. Eco-Tourism is twenty years off.

Under careful scrutiny, the Minister's actions become suspect under a number of sections of the Charter; namely Section 2a and b; and 7, Section 15-1; Sections 26 and 27; and Sections 31 and 32.

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom

of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the

right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of

fundamental justice.

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right

to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and,

in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,

colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be

construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in

Canada.

Multicultural heritage

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the

preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

Legislative powers

not extended

31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or

authority.

Application of Charter

32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters

within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the

Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all

matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

Even if the spring season was to resume, the effect of the immediate industry-wide cash flow restriction now in effect, is devastating to the north. Concurrently, the northern Ontario sub-culture has willfully, and with bias, been threatened with extinction. Its ecosystem has been radically altered. There is yet no solid plan in place to offset the losses. Government decision making must be a responsible process considering the welfare of its peoples' creeds and forms of expression and means of income. Any change, and impacts of change must be managed both effectively and compassionately. Negligence is not an excuse for human pain.

In Canada, and in Ontario, the approach to legal knowledge expects that the people understand the law, both old and new, to somehow cascade down from parliament and legislatures to the public. Sadly the majority of Canadians haven't the foggiest notion of the mechanisms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The thought is not mine, It's a summarized statement of Peter H. Russell's, one of Canada's leading constitutional lawyers.

The Canadian Charter of Rights is a fundamental set of premises and directions by which we determine societal meaning and value. When a government chooses to act in direct opposition to the intentions couched in this prime document, then that government no longer serves the common citizen, its motives become. suspect. Also, the laws enacted by that government must be reviewed and possibly rescinded and revoked.

A cultural heritage is defined by the behaviours and beliefs and identities of the people who hold them. Many of the people in northern Ontario who are non Native have similar beliefs and expressions. In fact, rural people could be classified as a part of that culture, beyond borders. As a religion has no national borders, so a hunting culture extends beyond a border. An investigation of the values and expressions in Rural Northern Ontario would most definitely illustrate a commonly held set of views and practices, and thus, define a culture and a heritage.

Culture is defined in stories and surely we have a tradition of story telling. Culture is defined in activities and rituals, of which hunting itself can be considered a ritual. Hunting families have rites of passage; the giving of a gun to a son or daughter, the giving of a fishing rod at certain ages. The first partridge is an achievement. So with the first bear or moose.

If our Northern rural population was just discovered, an anthropologist would be able to distinctly set us apart from the urbanite by types of stories, by behaviours, by rituals, by beliefs, and by passions.

As in any religious culture, there are variations. Not all practicing Catholics believe in birth control, yet they are classed as Catholics. Not all Natives have the same belief structures yet they are classed, overall, as cultures. Not all traditions are expressed exactly the same way, however, most would argue that they are of the same culture.

There is nothing inherently wrong in the practice of hunting. Hunting follows the commonly accepted principles of sacrifice and consumptive use. The principle of sacrifice is a common theme in many cultures. Consumptive use is an accepted practice in our society. As hunters, and providers of hunting experiences, we express, or allow others to express or learn discover personal and traditional identities in terms of human history and tradition. In my beliefs, animal death through predatory hunting is a sacrifice ensuring the last true independence. It allow me to nourish myself . It allows me to link myself with my friends and family through food. Willfully eradicating that form of expression is to deny that long history of the human being and his interaction with his environment.

The Northern rural people have an unrecognized culture that consists of a set of beliefs and expressions that are different from that of the urban dweller. Hunting is a part of that culture (or sub-culture) and that by tampering with seasons without justification is, in effect, a paring away of that culture.

The Minister's decision is an attack against an unorganized and unrecognized culture in Northern Ontario.

Arguing that human rights legislation attempts to deter the forcing of one culture's beliefs on another, then the influence of societal values identified by the Minister of Natural Resources as a factor in making

the decision that he could not tolerate the loss of even one cub, is in fact, the influencing of lawmaking, or modifying law, in effect denying the profession and expression of a minority culture.

If a society can allow the taking of a life of a turkey as an expression of a cultural value (Christmas) then it must also allow the taking of a bear in a traditional sense. If spring hunting is defined as a rite of

spring for the last thirty years, then it is a de-facto rite or tradition, and a part of the Northern Culture.

The Northern Rural values and beliefs have been devalued and have been indirectly libeled and slandered by people of our own country. These are most serious violations. The northern culture, its forms of expression, and the profession of its own beauty has been made to look evil. The Minister seems to concur with this effect.

When a government chooses to act in direct opposition to the intentions couched in our prime document, then that government no longer serves the common citizen, and its motives become suspect. Also, the laws enacted by that government must be reviewed and possibly rescinded and revoked.